But I have used Fluke's Hall-effect DC current clamp accessory quite often. It provides reasonably precise measurement of DC (or AC) currents up to 500A. Great for double checking suspect lamphouse current meters up to Omnimax size loads, or for balancing loads in 3-phase installations.

Remember, if it works it's a Fluke...

Paul
SMPTE Hollywood Section
Unemployed mercenary film/video projectionist/engineer
"Otaku wa tsurai yo" <-- Yeah I know, bad pun. Sue me.
It's tough being a fan!

I, like others, have settled on FLUKE. For a true-RMS you into the 87 series (and higher). They are not cheap, but then again, you won't have to be trading them out very often either so think of it in the cost/year sense. I carry a FLUKE 87 with me where ever I go. I don't know if you really need the true-RMS feature in your line of work but if you feel you need it, then the 87 or 187 might be worth looking at. It also has a back-light feature so working in dark areas is not a problem.

There was an analog meter that folded up ( I believe that it was made by BBC and distributed in the States by SMART devices) that I might make room for if I had one.

The problem is, in a tool box, space is a premium so everything should have a good purpose and take up as little space as possible. If your career is depending on your performance, don't settle for junk, it will bite you in the long run.

Now on the bench, that is another story...I always have both analog and digital...If I'm just looking for a number, then I grab the digital probes...if I'm adjusting something, then the analog wins hands down. In fact, my work bench has two-analog meters, an AC voltmeter (reads from less than a millivolt up to 300 volts and also reads in dB..has a mirrored scale to prevent parallax errors too) and I also have the bench tech's old standard..the VTVM (yes with vacuum tubes). As most VTVMs go, when reading resistance, full-deflection is infinate and 0 = no deflection...that is when the probes are not touching anything, the meter is pointing all of the way to the right.

Now on the analog vs digital debate (seems to happen in most industries, doesn't it?)...one thing I hate about DMMs is the perceived accuracy. While in college, students always preferred the digital meter because it was sooooo accurate. Baloney. Ever read the spec sheet on a DMM (or any meter)....just because the meter says it is 20.23 volts that doesn't mean it really is 20.23 volts. Read the spec on the DMM you will find that the accuracy is expressed as a percentage of the reading PLUS a percentage of the range you are on! It isn't uncommon to have two identical meters read different and be within their stated accuracy.

Many readings in life you only really need to be within a factor of 10...that is, is it 5 volts or .5 volts...if the meter comes up near the "5" on the scale, it is good enough (this is not true in all applications, for sure, but as I said many times it is). If this is the type of troubleshooting one is doing (looking for the failed part) then an analog meter might be considerably faster than waiting for the digital meter to settle for each reading.

The problem with analog meters for field work is that they take up too much damn space.

I must say, I never was too fond of Simpson meters, the 260 included. I do have one on the "recone bench" for setting the amlifier output voltage when testing speakers. They are not horribly accurate, can load down the circuit under test (depending on the circuit, of course), don't have many ranges and such. They are just one's basic analog meter that does fine for my "within a factor of 10" measuring but I wouldn't do anything that you want accurate with it. I find it amazing that it is still in production as one of the last hold outs of the analog meter era and it sell for a rather hefty price (rivals some high end DMMs). Clearly, as has been stated here, the Simpson 260 has its fans and following and more power to them. It would take up a bit too much space in the tool box though.

Steve

Steve